Could there be another reason for global warming.....

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin
But I see you've already suck to the level of questioning the very basis of science. Wonderful. Just like those creationists who try to question dating techniques to justify their bible-literalist view.

You see why ideologues like you are bad? No matter what your aims or political persuasion, you're all essentially the same - you completely give up rationality, thought and facts just so you can defend whatever preconceived notions you have. Pathetic :thumbsdown:

Translation: "you don't agree with me, therefore you are not rational."

We should always question our dating techniques and computer simulations...they've been wrong more than a handful of times.

No, you're irrational because you're ignoring facts. Just becuase you use generic rejectionist lines (ie you don't have any actual critiques of current ice core sampling methods or ideas on improving them, you're just bitching and whining) doesn't make it any less obvious or stupid.

I'm not ignoring anything. I have a history of taking the small % side of every argument. I'm an objectionist and I'm not sold on either side of global warming.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz
The fact of the matter is that all we know is that temps are rising, why temps are rising is just hypothesis. It could be any number of factors we don't know about. It could be merely coincidence that temps are rising at the same time we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere (keyword COULD, I'm not saying CO2 is not the cause, we just don't know for sure).

So what you're saying is that:
[*]carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas
[*]the fact that tempratures and CO2 concentrations have varied proportionally for the last 800000 years is pure coincidence. (link).

On point 1, no I don't say it's not a greenhouse gas.

On point 2, I'll refer you to the link provided by Acanthus right above this reply.

I'm affraid you're not interpreting that correctly, which is evident from the first paragraph alone

New research suggests that an increase in arctic temperatures as a result of global warming could result in significantly higher levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. This, in turn, could fuel global warming even more.

What the article describes is a positive feedback system, where CO2 causes warming, which causes more CO2, which causes more warming etc. This is actually a very bad thing.

But it doesn't actually say anything as to why CO2 concentrations suddenly jumped outside their natural range 200 years ago. So, do you really think point 2 is a coincidence?

You read what you wanted to read.

They dont say what the cause was, they only say that global warming could fuel the release of gases that could in turn accelerate it further.

Bolded the important part for you. Read your articles in the future... :roll:

Learn to read.

Global warming =/= what causes global warming.

I do not argue that the climate is not changing.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz
The fact of the matter is that all we know is that temps are rising, why temps are rising is just hypothesis. It could be any number of factors we don't know about. It could be merely coincidence that temps are rising at the same time we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere (keyword COULD, I'm not saying CO2 is not the cause, we just don't know for sure).

So what you're saying is that:
[*]carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas
[*]the fact that tempratures and CO2 concentrations have varied proportionally for the last 800000 years is pure coincidence. (link).

On point 1, no I don't say it's not a greenhouse gas.

On point 2, I'll refer you to the link provided by Acanthus right above this reply.

I'm affraid you're not interpreting that correctly, which is evident from the first paragraph alone

New research suggests that an increase in arctic temperatures as a result of global warming could result in significantly higher levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. This, in turn, could fuel global warming even more.

What the article describes is a positive feedback system, where CO2 causes warming, which causes more CO2, which causes more warming etc. This is actually a very bad thing.

But it doesn't actually say anything as to why CO2 concentrations suddenly jumped outside their natural range 200 years ago. So, do you really think point 2 is a coincidence?

You read what you wanted to read.

They dont say what the cause was, they only say that global warming could fuel the release of gases that could in turn accelerate it further.

Bolded the important part for you. Read your articles in the future... :roll:

It says as a result of global warming, not the release of CO2...Global Warming may well not be caused by CO2, or CO2 may only be part of it.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz
The fact of the matter is that all we know is that temps are rising, why temps are rising is just hypothesis. It could be any number of factors we don't know about. It could be merely coincidence that temps are rising at the same time we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere (keyword COULD, I'm not saying CO2 is not the cause, we just don't know for sure).

So what you're saying is that:
[*]carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas
[*]the fact that tempratures and CO2 concentrations have varied proportionally for the last 800000 years is pure coincidence. (link).

On point 1, no I don't say it's not a greenhouse gas.

On point 2, I'll refer you to the link provided by Acanthus right above this reply.

I'm affraid you're not interpreting that correctly, which is evident from the first paragraph alone

New research suggests that an increase in arctic temperatures as a result of global warming could result in significantly higher levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. This, in turn, could fuel global warming even more.

What the article describes is a positive feedback system, where CO2 causes warming, which causes more CO2, which causes more warming etc. This is actually a very bad thing.

But it doesn't actually say anything as to why CO2 concentrations suddenly jumped outside their natural range 200 years ago. So, do you really think point 2 is a coincidence?

You read what you wanted to read.

They dont say what the cause was, they only say that global warming could fuel the release of gases that could in turn accelerate it further.

Bolded the important part for you. Read your articles in the future... :roll:

It says as a result of global warming, not the release of CO2...Global Warming may well not be caused by CO2, or CO2 may only be part of it.

FFS it does not say that. It says:

1) Global Warming is causing certain deposits of CO2 to be released
2) as a result, the increased CO2 is accelerating Global Warming

They admit that CO2 is a cause of Global Warming by the mere fact that the increased release of it is accelerating the process of Global Warming.

This is simple Reasoning.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin
But I see you've already suck to the level of questioning the very basis of science. Wonderful. Just like those creationists who try to question dating techniques to justify their bible-literalist view.

You see why ideologues like you are bad? No matter what your aims or political persuasion, you're all essentially the same - you completely give up rationality, thought and facts just so you can defend whatever preconceived notions you have. Pathetic :thumbsdown:

Translation: "you don't agree with me, therefore you are not rational."

We should always question our dating techniques and computer simulations...they've been wrong more than a handful of times.

Measurable facts before opinions, please! The amount of carbon fuel burned in a year can be calculated and so can the CO2 released into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect of CO2 gas can be measured by experiment. More cosmic rays are being detected by satellite because they are more sensitive and don't have to filter out earth based interference.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sorry,

Gotta regard the non-global warming types of using phony logic---which distills down to the following.

We do not know all factors that contribute to actual global temperatures or the consequences--in short our understanding is less than perfect---therefore we should do nothing---and dismiss the possibility that we should change ANY human behavior.

Sounds awful stupid to me--because we will never know everything.---but it sure does not mean we know nothing.---the global warming is based on some pretty sound science---the ney sayers are basing their arguements on some pretty speculative science.

Understanding is never perfect. But we should figure that blistering itch is from the roll in the pision ivy and apply the calimine lotion.

 

[Acanthus]

I believe in science as a SCIENTIST.

I use the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to combine FACTS into a HYPOTHESIS.

CO2 does not control the temperature of the sun, or the earths orbit around it.

Nor does it control oceanic currents.

There are gases in the atmosphere that are more responsible for warming than CO2.

Beyond that, its all junk science.

The OSU article uses the scientific method, and doesnt go as far as to say what casues the warming, as that isnt what they were studying. That is good science. What they have determined is alarming, that global warming can be accelerated by the heating process that is taking place.

On top of that, what do you propose we do about it?

Kyoto placed no rules on China at all, when it was signed by them, they had plenty of room to put out MORE CO2 than before... Same with Russia.

Most nations didnt have to do anything at all, except of course America, who would have to spend billions to reduce output. Thats why it got voted down 96-0.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Its all a Romulan Plot!!!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Oh come on.

They don't even try to ask why is the readings now the highest ever?

All of a sudden cosmic radiation is the highest in the Universe ever?

The only thing different in Earth's history is man took out a massive proportion of foliage and burning the crap out of fossil fuels.

Those two factors combined are the only main reasons for the mess we are creating, period.

Did we cut down lots of trees and burn fossil fuels on Mars too?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Oh come on.

They don't even try to ask why is the readings now the highest ever?

All of a sudden cosmic radiation is the highest in the Universe ever?

The only thing different in Earth's history is man took out a massive proportion of foliage and burning the crap out of fossil fuels.

Those two factors combined are the only main reasons for the mess we are creating, period.

Did we cut down lots of trees and burn fossil fuels on Mars too?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Red Herring

 

[Acanthus]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

http://www.geotimes.org/feb02/NN_MarsCC.html

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/01-dec-06.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

 

[sandorski]

What happens on Mars happens on Mars.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
What happens on Mars happens on Mars.

Without any human interference what so ever.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski
What happens on Mars happens on Mars.

Without any human interference what so ever.

Yup, but that doesn't apply to Earth.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski
What happens on Mars happens on Mars.

Without any human interference what so ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

There are natural variations, and natural hot and cold periods. However, what has happened over the last 200 years is unprecedented and unnatural.

What it all boils down to is that you people believe in a grand coincidence, whereby CO2 levels not seen in 800000 years just happened to occur at the exact same time as the industrial revolution.

 

[zephyrprime]

I think the cause is actually due to the sun getting warmer. I believe that the sun gets warmer and cooler in a ~5-6 day cycle. 5 or 6 sun days that is which is about 55-66 earth years.

 

[Darkhawk28]

For the 1000th time on this forum, you have to consider the source and I'm not talking about Faux News.

Mr. Milloy is a paid shill for the oil companies.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski
What happens on Mars happens on Mars.

Without any human interference what so ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

There are natural variations, and natural hot and cold periods. However, what has happened over the last 200 years is unprecedented and unnatural.

What it all boils down to is that you people believe in a grand coincidence, whereby CO2 levels not seen in 800000 years just happened to occur at the exact same time as the industrial revolution.

You fail to read what im saying.

 

[ArneBjarne]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ntdz
The fact of the matter is that all we know is that temps are rising, why temps are rising is just hypothesis. It could be any number of factors we don't know about. It could be merely coincidence that temps are rising at the same time we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere (keyword COULD, I'm not saying CO2 is not the cause, we just don't know for sure).

So what you're saying is that:
[*]carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas
[*]the fact that tempratures and CO2 concentrations have varied proportionally for the last 800000 years is pure coincidence. (link).

On point 1, no I don't say it's not a greenhouse gas.

On point 2, I'll refer you to the link provided by Acanthus right above this reply.

I'm affraid you're not interpreting that correctly, which is evident from the first paragraph alone

New research suggests that an increase in arctic temperatures as a result of global warming could result in significantly higher levels of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. This, in turn, could fuel global warming even more.

What the article describes is a positive feedback system, where CO2 causes warming, which causes more CO2, which causes more warming etc. This is actually a very bad thing.

But it doesn't actually say anything as to why CO2 concentrations suddenly jumped outside their natural range 200 years ago. So, do you really think point 2 is a coincidence?

You read what you wanted to read.

They dont say what the cause was, they only say that global warming could fuel the release of gases that could in turn accelerate it further.

So the sentence "Carbon dioxide is a major player in global warming." from the article means what according to you?

 

[DrPizza]

Ohhhhhh, I understand now...

According to the article cited above, the CO2 released due to global warming which will accelerate the process of global warming must be a different kind of CO2 than the stuff released by humans. The human CO2 has nothing to do with global warming; global warming is caused by something else. But, the CO2 that's released due to the global warming DOES accelerate global warming. I get it now.

/sarcasm

Oh, and as for 99% of people believe the Earth has a circular orbit?! Someone spends too much time with elementary school children.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
For the 1000th time on this forum, you have to consider the source and I'm not talking about Faux News.

Mr. Milloy is a paid shill for the oil companies.

as are many posters on here as well.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Martin
But I see you've already suck to the level of questioning the very basis of science. Wonderful. Just like those creationists who try to question dating techniques to justify their bible-literalist view.

You see why ideologues like you are bad? No matter what your aims or political persuasion, you're all essentially the same - you completely give up rationality, thought and facts just so you can defend whatever preconceived notions you have. Pathetic :thumbsdown:

Translation: "you don't agree with me, therefore you are not rational."

We should always question our dating techniques and computer simulations...they've been wrong more than a handful of times.

uhh, care to point to dating techniques being incorrect? Any inaccuracies are usually from contamination. I really doubt they're relying on one set of data, but rather, I'd bet they've got MANY sets of data which all say about the same thing.